System Completeness??

[Piercing Light]

Hi All,

My first post here.
I have been looking the forum and want to ask about completeness in any system.

Southern Styles are most effective but most seem to be limited to stand up situations. A lot of so called anti-grappling techniques aren't always based on reality. e.g. being face on to an attacker (unlikely), you may have been tackled from behind etc.

What is Chinese grappling?
Do any southern Kung Fu have this within the system?
Can Chinese grappling compare to BJJ (I mean the techniques would have to be the same or at least very similar)?

In fairness, I think to be complete you must be at least a compentant ground fighter. Strike and Submission fighting is not reality but it shows a lot for any martial artist (e.g. reactions etc.).
Finally in order to be good like anything you must train and train hard. I have never seen any chinese grappling at all... or training in any kung fu, why is this?

So is there really completeness or are we left to do what Bruce did (not philosophical)?

Thanks,

Piercing Light

[Yum Cha]

First Post? Ok. A little protocol....

A topic on exactly this same topic already exists in the main Kung Fu forum, here's the link.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36500

Its called "cross posting". No sense in starting a similar thread here when one already exists.

If you are not getting the info you want from that other thread, perhaps a different thread name might be in order to avoid confusion.

BTW, welcome to the forum.
Cheers

[fiercest tiger]

I dont think kung fu has better ground work then BJJ because thats what they do only. Kung fu has alot more involvemnt with stand up, clinch and throws, takedowns, but limited ground work. Kung fu rather finish standing or takedown and smash without the wrestling.

Although a friend of mine at work is BJJ and submission grappling his ground work is very smooth and he knows his ****, but so far he hasnt taken me down and we havent tested our hands yet with gloves on. Soon it will happen though!!:) Its hard to prove that kung fu has a great fighting arsenal but whats lacking is no kung fu guys are entering MMA to see if they can stand up to the MMA. IMHO kung fu is really a MMA but specialises in stand up more so then ground. Iceman beat Randy and he is a groundfighter.Iceman is more a kempo and thai guy with some background now in groundfighting. Its how you train and against all ranges not just forms in kung fu!

hope this helps!

FT

[Yum Cha]

Hi Piercing Light,

Fierce Kitten :p has given you some good feedback on Kung Fu and BBJ.

The issue with the three, striking, grappling and ground fighting is probably more related to getting the opponent to fight your fight, not in fighting their fight.

Chinese Grappling - Google "Chi na" for some examples. It exists, and has lots of application.

There is another version, Bridge Fighting, which is more a combination of grappling and striking. You bridge, in essence, connect with your opponent, then you hold the connection and strike across it. A ridiculously simple example would be grabbing someone by the shirt, then hitting them with the opposite hand, then grabbing them with the striking hand, and hitting them with the hand that had formerly grabbed. In essence, never breaking the contact (bridge) with the opponent. The technique being that the "bridge" keeps the opponent off balance, and the strike has a better result. Again, ridiculously simple example, but the fundamental is characteristic of lots of southern styles.

[Piercing Light]

Hey this is going well,

Thanks for your honest response FT, as expected your response seems accurate.

Yum Cha, I agree there are many applications for different techniques, for a variety of purposes. That's why Bruce's JKD philosophy is so appealing. Kung-fu has more to offer than a variety of items that can be purchased in a store and it has much significance.

I am not sure but I have come to think what does it mean to train in a variety of areas?
Areas which don't always require "damaging force". For example my younger brother went a bit nuts and would not calm down, striking would cause "damaging force" but to circumvent the situation I focused his aggression on myself and choked him out enough for him to realise his helplessness and calm down without "hurting him or him hurting others".
I use this to compare like what child specialist does to traumatised enraged children... they sit on them, until they calm down... very effective. The child is often the original victum too (just to point out).

This is why as I get older completeness and wisdom is an unending process.
Kung-fu is great and meaningful but seperating it out and teaching it in components keeps it pure but does not allow for some type of integration effect. I think the elders were probably wiser than this. I am sure that this is a riddle and the missing piece might exist, as bamboo shares the same root system.

Sure MMA Kung-Fu would be good to see and in today's time, time is limited, attraction is entertainment and wisdom is not a blood spattered stain on a mat. One hit one kill?

What are your thoughts FT, Yum Cha?

Piercing Light

[fiercest tiger]

I think that Kung fu has much more to offer, i myslef have gone more into the internal systems alot more and see that they are better for you then external hand sets. Each to there own as they say!:)

Still i spar my guys and do the pad work, conditioning, road runs, i go to the gym as well surf. Where do you want the fu to take you? I know what i want now after 20 years i finally found why i do M/arts.

FT

[Reggie1]

What is Chinese grappling?

Shaui Chiao, Fukien Dog boxing are two examples of Chinese grappling. I don't know a lot about Dog boxing or where to find it.


Can Chinese grappling compare to BJJ (I mean the techniques would have to be the same or at least very similar)?

I don't really have a ton of experience, but in my opinion, no. I think BJJ is one of the best systems when it comes to groundfighting.


Finally in order to be good like anything you must train and train hard. I have never seen any chinese grappling at all... or training in any kung fu, why is this?

I don't know. I train at a 7* mantis school, and we work on standing grappling / throws/ breakfalls. We also train in some groundfighting, but it's with someone who has a jiu-jitsu background.

[Vasquez]

Areas which don't always require "damaging force". For example my younger brother went a bit nuts and would not calm down, striking would cause "damaging force" but to circumvent the situation I focused his aggression on myself and choked him out enough for him to realise his helplessness and calm down without "hurting him or him hurting others".
I use this to compare like what child specialist does to traumatised enraged children... they sit on them, until they calm down... very effective. The child is often the original victum too (just to point out). Piercing Light

Oic just like a doctor - first thing is to do no harm. I like that philosophy

[Piercing Light]

Thanks for the posts,

If there is limited grappling, locking up and ground stuff etc. (in kung-fu) and there is no full system is there any problem with training ground stuff and combining it with a relatively complete Kung-fu system for stand up ?
Because there seems to be a debate if Kungfu guys trained the ground fighting element that they would be much better in MMA etc. But if you trained it well, you would have to go outside your art to really improve (like all MMA guys)... Seems like most people have been calling this mix-matching and have given this a negative connotation.
Is this right? For example combining BJJ and Kung-Fu is it OK? Because Reggie7 says BJJ boys are probably better than the CMA boys.

FT, I also like to do a variety of training in many areas. It's good to see that you have found why you do MA. Hmm... Me I am not sure but I have a few good reasons to do it (some I know and some I don't) and it's good that way. Not sure how to answer "where the Fu is taking me" though... I'll tell you when I get there.

Vasquez, yeah you know it. I might not be skillful but I think knowing what to do when and then doing it counts for a lot. Having the ability and attributes is only the first step... (and I still haven't got that).

Piercing Light

[Vasquez]

Becoming a closed door diciple will be a bonus for sure. It might take a few years to earn your sifu's trust and become part of the family.

[fiercest tiger]

What is more important comps or street reality? We trained takedowns and mounts last night and for fun i threw 2 guys into the mix as the student was on top bashing the bottom, and let me say the guy on the mount coped a kick to face and then got beaten up as if the guys friends came running in to help his mate.

So its up to you what is right and wrong bro,

FT

[Vasquez]

Are you saying its better to be the one at the bottom?

[Piercing Light]

Hi FT,

No doubt in your senario being on the ground is not the best position for 3 people but nor is the violence of beating someone senseless from the mount... , might not be nessecary, right?
Out of curiousity what were you training.. Reality or BJJ? and who was in control, did you want to prove your point? Did you set the senario to your students and tell them what was allowed, warn them of possibilities etc.?
Another thing, why were you training takedowns and mounts in the first place? Is this part of your style or are you on the same track but being oppositional?
When I learn something new like rock climbing I expect my teacher will warn me of unforeseen possiblities and strategies to deal with them, isn't that the art in Martial Art?
If you read my post "good responses" you will see that I think different situations call for different attitudes. I am not that knowledgable but BJJ and grappling doesn't need to go the the ground, locks and chokes can be whilst standing. Right?
All real situations are reality just they can be different. A screaming child is reality or a hormonal teenager attacking others, are you suggesting to beat them up?
Maybe in your situation he should have struck the first student in the throat and dealt with the other two, better than taking the kick? One dead student, it might stop the other two students?
No right and wrong in my book only consequences, (probably all wrong) just the choosing the best possible outcome in any given situation.
And just in case I misunderstand, I do see your point if you mean survival first and how street is not sport. And I agree whole heartly that training for the "real" deal is primary.
I am agreeing with you... but what do you do when tearing someone apart is really not the best reality option?

Piercing Light

[Reggie1]

But if you trained it well, you would have to go outside your art to really improve (like all MMA guys)... Seems like most people have been calling this mix-matching and have given this a negative connotation.

Here's my take on this. The history behind my style is that, ~400 years ago, the founder of the style and his sihing created 7-star mantis by taking what they thought was the best stuff from 17 other styles at the time, incorporating some principles based on their observations of the mantis insect and the dil sau (mantis hand) technique. This is what 7-star mantis is.

Our style came from cherry-picking other styles for their best stuff. My opinion, based on our history, is that the founder of the style wouldn't have a problem taking good groundfighting techniques and incoporating them into the system. Does this make us not mantis fighters any more? Are we mixed martial artists now? I guess we could be called MMA people now, but I don't really care. It's just a label. I still think of myself as a mantis fighter, because I try and apply our principles, even while groundfighting.

Our groundwork instruction also comes from another 7* instructor who has a background in jiu-jitsu. So he's very good at combining groundwork techniques w/ mantis principles.


Is this right? For example combining BJJ and Kung-Fu is it OK? Because Reggie7 says BJJ boys are probably better than the CMA boys.

Let me clarify--I'm saying BJJ guys a great groundfighters, and that BJJ is one of the best systems when it comes to groundfighting. I've never seen Dog Boxing or any other CMA groundfighting, so I really can't comment on it.

[SevenStar]

I dont think kung fu has better ground work then BJJ because thats what they do only. Kung fu has alot more involvemnt with stand up, clinch and throws, takedowns, but limited ground work. Kung fu rather finish standing or takedown and smash without the wrestling.

Although a friend of mine at work is BJJ and submission grappling his ground work is very smooth and he knows his ****, but so far he hasnt taken me down and we havent tested our hands yet with gloves on. Soon it will happen though!!:) Its hard to prove that kung fu has a great fighting arsenal but whats lacking is no kung fu guys are entering MMA to see if they can stand up to the MMA. IMHO kung fu is really a MMA but specialises in stand up more so then ground. Iceman beat Randy and he is a groundfighter.Iceman is more a kempo and thai guy with some background now in groundfighting. Its how you train and against all ranges not just forms in kung fu!

hope this helps!

FT


IMO, kung fu does not fall into the MMA category, generally. there is not enough diversity. to "have grappling in the system" isn't enough... you must be actively training it on a regular basis. being made up of multiple styles isn't the sole requirement.

As for iceman, the reason he's so effective is that he trains grappling. His kempo and thai gave him decent hands, but he is awesome at defending takedowns - that didn't come from either kempo or thai boxing.... chuck was captain of his high school wrestling team and has been training bjj for the past six years. He uses this knowledge to help him defend the takedown, then strike.


EDIT: he was a division 1 wrestler through four years of college as well.

[Vasquez]

There are many pressure point strikes in TCMA that you don't need to take someone to the ground.

[Piercing Light]

There are many pressure point strikes in TCMA that you don't need to take someone to the ground.
__________________
My name is Vasquez Francisco Conquistadore

What's the point you are trying to make or what's this in response to? (I think we are all aware of this fact)

[Vasquez]

You can do so much more when dim mak is part of your game plan. Its a real eqaliser when someone is much stronger or heavier than you are. It'll be silly to trade punches or grapple with them

[fiercest tiger]

Pressure points will work to a degree is you are fast and accurate but lacks when the gloves are on with MMA comps.

Hi 7 Star,

I think that some styles of Kung Fu has everything u need against grapplers, the difference is BJJ are experts on the ground and for compitition is great i dont know how good it is on the pavement when one falls wrong trying to take down another skilled fighter. I have dumped people on there heads in the street it is also lethal. I think it depends on how you train and as long as you train against all ranges and try and find how to escape from the mount as well the guard this is a big help.

Gaz

[David Jamieson]

you guys are joking right? I mean come on. lol touch to quiet has pretty much be debunked on the whole mystical thing fo a long time.

a) It has never been used in a dynamic way in a match

b) It can in some cases be explained with the use of poisons

c) many of touch to quiet techniques are nerve bundle strikes, etc etc

d) the way most people think of what dim mak is is utter nonsense, it is NOT what many people think it is.

example: a knockout punch to the mandibular nerve bundle is in effect dim mak by definition.

whereas: hitting acupuncture spots in a series in order to paralyze someone is movie fantasy and quite frankly makes the whole reality of it look ridiculous.

I would implore people to please seperate childrens stories such as the wu xia novels from the hard reality of actual combat sportive or for real.

The whole idea of "too deadly for the ring" is often a cover for "this art is no where near as effective as I have made it out to be".

The only way these arts will get face or save face is if they go and do it the way it gets done. That is to say, git er done.

Many traditional kungfu artists have NO problem with producing fighters who compete and prove teh effectiveness of their art even when they strip away the throat ripping and heart stopping techs. If you can't pare it down, then sorry, you ain't got no cred.

For shizzle and word out.

[Vasquez]

Pressure points will work to a degree is you are fast and accurate but lacks when the gloves are on with MMA comps.

Hi 7 Star,

I think that some styles of Kung Fu has everything u need against grapplers, the difference is BJJ are experts on the ground and for compitition is great i dont know how good it is on the pavement when one falls wrong trying to take down another skilled fighter. I have dumped people on there heads in the street it is also lethal. I think it depends on how you train and as long as you train against all ranges and try and find how to escape from the mount as well the guard this is a big help.

Gaz

speed and accuracy is tyhe key otherwise you're just scrapping. with good chin na there's no need to go to the ground with a grappler.

[David Jamieson]

with good chin na there's no need to go to the ground with a grappler.


to presuppose the outcome of any violent encounter is short sighted in my opinion.

You can't know if you are or are not going to wind up on the ground or in a position of disadvantage. It is better to train for as many circum,stances as possible.

Not many styles look at all ranges including the ground or groundfighting. Chin Na has locks and holds, but if you don't have the training in applied use vs a fully resisting opponent in all ranges, then pretty much anything will surprise you with it's shortcomings technically.

Intention is what is key over any range technique, strike, grappling or otherwise. Correct intent will carry you far. This is something you can encourage, and something you can sort of explain, but ultimately the rawness of intent required to fight comes from within the player.

[SevenStar]

There are many pressure point strikes in TCMA that you don't need to take someone to the ground.


even if that were true, that doesn't mean that YOU won't be TAKEN to the ground...

[SevenStar]

Hi 7 Star,

I think that some styles of Kung Fu has everything u need against grapplers, the difference is BJJ are experts on the ground and for compitition is great i dont know how good it is on the pavement when one falls wrong trying to take down another skilled fighter. I have dumped people on there heads in the street it is also lethal. I think it depends on how you train and as long as you train against all ranges and try and find how to escape from the mount as well the guard this is a big help.

Gaz


I'm not saying some styles don't. I'm saying that the actual definition of an MMA is someone who trains both striking and grappling. If you don't, then by definition, it's not MMA. that's all.

As for going to the ground, I don't disagree with you - it's not advisable. People always assume that the grappler wants to take you down to the ground, no matter what. that's not the case. Ideally, I want to throw you or do a takedown that leaves me in a standing position. The benefit of ground work is that in the event that you DO get taken down, you are comfortable there and know how to most efficiently get up. Obviously, that's a plus. As for training to escape the guard and mount, yes, those are great things. I think problems can arise when you train these with other people who are not grapplers, however. When I trained CMA, we grappled. I thought I actually knew something about grappling - until I started grappling. Even the new white belts would school me. It amazed me how many small details we overlooked, because we were a bunch of non-grapplers trying to train grappling.

[fiercest tiger]

But kung fu stands up and takes down, submissions, etc as well we dont have to go down. What im saying is when you do get taken down you wanna know how to escape from those guys as fast as you can or counter that shoot as best you can be it just to get to a better position for yoruself for a simple better way then just sprawl.

I like BJJ i wish there was more time in the day to practise cause i would take up something like BJJ or train more KUNG FU ground work myself.

FT

P.S Whats your thoughts of traditional jujutsu vs BJJ or Judo?:)

[Piercing Light]

Hi,

Here's my understanding Jujitsu was the first and russian sambo, judo, BJJ are off-shoots. Much like most of the Kung-Fu that's taught it's modified.

Judo is a sport developed for games (Olympics much like TKD was develop for the Korean Games). It is from Jujitsu, emphasis is on throwing techniques (waza), they have good submissions but they rely heavily on the kimono. THe kimono is normally full length arms etc. They spend much of their time on throwing and they are the probably the best at that. It's a points system. If your on your back pinned (for I think 30 seconds) then you lose. Most BJJ starts there.

Jujitsu is the source and they do strike! I haven't seen much of it but have heard that they are direct and use vital points e.g. shuto techniques. They use a lot more "muscle" rather than technique as in BJJ, so size really helps. This is more full on.

BJJ is much more simple to explain because all the info is out there. It was developed by Helio Gracie, a small guy, to defeat much larger opponents. He did this because the Jujitsu required strength and size, which he didn't have. His technique is legendary and he never refused a fight (apparently). Positioning and conservation of energy is important and the techniques are the rest. These guys train on the ground heaps and they are the probably the best at that. A lot of the takedowns now require less skill and more "muscle" because the guys are larger. But the techniques remain effective. The Helio interview is really good, Tape 4 or 5 of the advanced Gracie video series. He explains alot about the art and it's purpose, really not much striking in it. In simplistic style, pure BJJ want to take it to the ground and choke the guy out, or settle for a submission.
Competition BJJ uses kimono or no kimono and takes Judo to the next level because it is all based on submissions only, if no submission then the dominate fighter wins.

Sambo is like BJJ as far as I can tell, some of them have really fantastic leg locks. they wear bike pants, kimono tops and short boxing shoes. And most have a wresting background combined with Traditional Jujitsu = sambo.

Most MMA is Thai Boxing and BJJ, with an emphasis on fast heavy strikes.

FT, Glad to see your on a similar page.

I think that they all have something to offer and training in them will make it more easy to defeat them. They aren't better than one another because their purposes are different. But if a trad Jujitsu guy got a strike in first then it's probably over.

Piercing Light

[Vasquez]

to presuppose the outcome of any violent encounter is short sighted in my opinion.

You can't know if you are or are not going to wind up on the ground or in a position of disadvantage. It is better to train for as many circum,stances as possible.

Not many styles look at all ranges including the ground or groundfighting. Chin Na has locks and holds, but if you don't have the training in applied use vs a fully resisting opponent in all ranges, then pretty much anything will surprise you with it's shortcomings technically.

Intention is what is key over any range technique, strike, grappling or otherwise. Correct intent will carry you far. This is something you can encourage, and something you can sort of explain, but ultimately the rawness of intent required to fight comes from within the player.

LOL, I see you're new to the arts. Agreed intent will take you far, but its only the beginning. with further training you develop chi - like projecting your intent. Evade, yield, counter and lock are 4 simple steps in subduing an attacker.

But if you prefer stricking arts like SPM, you do a flurry of three strikes which is more than enough.

[David Jamieson]

LOL, I see you're new to the arts. Agreed intent will take you far, but its only the beginning. with further training you develop chi - like projecting your intent. Evade, yield, counter and lock are 4 simple steps in subduing an attacker.

But if you prefer stricking arts like SPM, you do a flurry of three strikes which is more than enough.

LOL :rolleyes: I see you're a frggin idiot who hasn't been in an actual fight sportive or otherwise. thanks for coming out.

[Fu-Ying]

Peircing light-

I think and from what I read and heard Judo as practised in many schools outside Japan? is mostly olympic sport. However, Kano did not originally intended it to be JUST a sport. Remember he studied various different schools of jujitsu before synthesizing judo. In the present day Kodokan, (the orignal school set up by Kano), in Japan they have self defense classes, they teach atemi-waza (pressure point strike), as well...much like traditional jujitsu.

Now, whether overseas schools teaches these methods is depended on how close to "traditional judo" they are...... sounds funny the term, traditional judo.

Much like kungfu schools, Kano and his students, being the "new kids on the block" was challenged many times over by traditional jiujitsu schools. Remember challenge matches were not uncommon during the early part of the last century in China or Japan.

Sambo was developed from judo and not tradional jiujitsu. I forgot the name of the Russian or Russian's who brought it to the former Soviet Union. But I do remember one was involved, somehow to the government, thereby the proliferation among their police/military units.

[fiercest tiger]

When i was a young boy i started with Judo and Goshin Juitsu (modern ju juitsu) i liked judo for the ground work more so then the ju juitsu for some reason. The juitsu back then we did strikes and kicks with the throwing skills. Randori was a huge part of training!

Unless yo get taken down you will never know what its like to be in a enviroment that isnt your cuppa tea its kinda scarey when a guy has you locked, choked, screaming to get up. These arts have there place many people should learn some of it i think!

FT

[Piercing Light]

Ok... Seems like there is some consensus on the purpose of this thread now.

And let's agree that a good strike/s (what ever they are) can immediately end it.

Now a question of size, strength and speed of an individual?
These are all important issues because way too many people get caught up on this versus that and what's better etc. Intent is key, but then genetics would be the lock.
Your small, weak and slow... you may need a gun I think.... to stop some trained animal.
So I think that there is no doubt that a major restricting factor is genetics supposing all have the mind to train. That's a big reason why any style can be effective. A good style is the other side of the coin but I don't want to mistake the two for the same thing.

So what are the thoughts out there on the individual make up?

(I have more to say but let's start with this)

Piercing Light

[Vasquez]

LOL :rolleyes: I see you're a frggin idiot who hasn't been in an actual fight sportive or otherwise. thanks for coming out.

LOL iwhen you put actual fighting and sportive activity in the same bucket. It is not even close when you're working on a game plan based on rules. Don't get me wrong, you get fit and all that but what about your spirit?

[David Jamieson]

LOL iwhen you put actual fighting and sportive activity in the same bucket. It is not even close when you're working on a game plan based on rules. Don't get me wrong, you get fit and all that but what about your spirit?

Thanks for proving my point. Still don't get it? Conflict is conflict is conflict. You will fight like you train period. You cannot assume the outcome of any given conflict but you can gain a small advantage with any realistic training. That is to say use of technique vs any fully resisting or attacking opponent.

[Vasquez]

Thanks for proving my point. Still don't get it? Conflict is conflict is conflict. You will fight like you train period. You cannot assume the outcome of any given conflict but you can gain a small advantage with any realistic training. That is to say use of technique vs any fully resisting or attacking opponent.

so all this realistic training can only give you a small advantage against a regular person. sounds inefficient doesn't it LOL. i prefer the traditional way... most definately yes?

[Reggie1]

so all this realistic training can only give you a small advantage against a regular person.

Prove it.

I say it gives a pretty significant advantage, because fighting full-contact in the sporting world is as close as reasonably possible to being in a real fight. You get plenty of work in against an unpredictable and resisting opponent.

The only distinct disadvantages are a lack of training vs. multiple opponents and the lack of cheap shots. I say the whole 'cheap shot' thing isn't that big of a disadvantage, either. Give me a trained fighter who can't use cheap shots vs. an untrained fighter who can and I'll still put my money on the trained one.


It is not even close when you're working on a game plan based on rules.

This has to be a troll. How is it 'not even close'? And prove it. Not with your opinion, I want to see some evidence.

[David Jamieson]

so all this realistic training can only give you a small advantage against a regular person. sounds inefficient doesn't it LOL. i prefer the traditional way... most definately yes?

stance training, playing video games and living in a wu xia fantasy world gives you 0 < that is zero advantage in any conflict.

reggie1 is giving you the correct in regards to full contact fighting. Take the correct and learn from it.

[fiercest tiger]

What is real training? Unless you fight each other no gloves and try and kill each other thats real, But we cant train like that so gloves are used, head gear, groin guard. Fight each other standing up on the ground, kneeling, 2 on 1, 2 on 2 and so forth, add weapons.

You cant say because we are traditional its better, just fight constantly with each other to as close as you can get to real life as you can. Most traditional arts dont train right and we all know it!! Pick your game up guys for making traditional arts what its intended for not just push hands, grinding arms, chi sau.......put the gloves on and fight constantly see how you go outside your box. This is what i think needs to be done in TMA rather talking about dim mak, or i cant use my hand because its killing hand only. LOL come on lets be real here!!

FT

[Piercing Light]

I have to agree.
Thai fighters can really take a good hit, iron body??? That's conditioning, doesn't always need to be the best, just needs to work.
Face it most people that will confront us will not know many technicals aspects of martial arts, they will just want to hit you in the head!!! Period.
The stronger, faster and bigger you are the better the chances of winning (provided you have training or idea of what to do).

Now here is something that everyone can think about... A bit scientific but 100% fact.
A person with good genetics and that trains their fast twitch fibres will KO you in one hit! Each if they only know how to jab. You can practice all you like but if they are more co-ordinated then you and have a faster response all the iron palm, conditioning, forms, death strikes, weapons, sparring etc. might not help.
Timing is critical, so might be the set up etc.
But at the end of the day it's like a marriage.... good martial arts should promote the individual to hit their potential. Just some people have more potential than others... a sad but true fact. Most people don't do the right training to even get close to it anyway (their potential).
Training like everything else helps, and getting as close to as many situations through training is how we learn or we would all know nothing about anything.
Training gives us many things besides fighting skills, and we can not overlook these either.

On the question of spirit, what is it? It is something that cannot be defined, a concept, you can't quantify it. It's like saying spirit is going to help me survive a parachuting attempt,... oh, you don't have training? Didn't pack your chute? Oh you have lots of Spirit, well Bad Luck.
Spirit is individual and it's important but not a substitute for training hard. You want to get better at running then RUN! Want to get better at shooting for becoming an army man, first shoot targets, hopefully you'll never have to do it for real.

Times have changed and the accumulation of knowledge has to be used and trained or it will die. Think about it... Guns didn't always exsist and all the martial arts in the world won't help you if a bomb is dropped on you. So let's get some perspective.

Training all the ranges is very important but training in them is also important... I like the saying expect the unexpected. Like aiming for 100% you might not get it be settling for 90% is good by most peoples standard. But we still should aim for 100%, right?

And training helps more than a little (not just in kung fu).
Finally what ever happened to the opponent/s (number), type of situation, time of day, location, temperature, familarity of location/people/siutation, emotions, visual/auditory capacity (noise ie.nightclub), physical impairment, weapons, etc.
Looks a lot like when I was a kid training, even crossing the road.... Tunnel Vision. Seems like a lot of people stuck on their own agendas and not looking at the bigger picture.

The playing field is never truly level or predictable... and if they are it's only in our imaginations... right?

Piercing Light

[SevenStar]

But kung fu stands up and takes down, submissions, etc as well we dont have to go down. What im saying is when you do get taken down you wanna know how to escape from those guys as fast as you can or counter that shoot as best you can be it just to get to a better position for yoruself for a simple better way then just sprawl.

I like BJJ i wish there was more time in the day to practise cause i would take up something like BJJ or train more KUNG FU ground work myself.

FT

P.S Whats your thoughts of traditional jujutsu vs BJJ or Judo?:)


kung fu stands up and takes down, but IME there isn't equal emphasis on these and there is very little emphasis on the ground. that tends to happend when you have so many aspects of your training to deal with - standing, ground, clinching, iron palm, forms, weapons, nei gong, etc. As for the sprawl, that's one of the best takedown defenses around. What I would work would be follow ups to it.

I love judo. I'm currently a 3rd degree brown in it. My only direct experience with TJJ has been through a guy who was also a judo black belt, so he was big on randori. I know that not all TJJ schools randori, however, which I frown upon. As a whole, I don't mind the system - I think they place more of an emphasis on standing locks than I care for - but that's about it, other than lack of randori in some schools.

[SevenStar]

Judo is a sport developed for games (Olympics much like TKD was develop for the Korean Games). It is from Jujitsu, emphasis is on throwing techniques (waza), they have good submissions but they rely heavily on the kimono. THe kimono is normally full length arms etc. They spend much of their time on throwing and they are the probably the best at that. It's a points system. If your on your back pinned (for I think 30 seconds) then you lose. Most BJJ starts there.

judo was developed not only as a sport, but to preserve the arts. After the tokugara period, there was no need for samurai anymore, and no need for jujutsu. If I remember correctly it was banned as well. judo provided a means to keep the art alive and simultaneously bring it to the masses. It really caught on after kano's guys destroyed the best jujutsu school in japan in a competition - twice.

Jujitsu is the source and they do strike! I haven't seen much of it but have heard that they are direct and use vital points e.g. shuto techniques. They use a lot more "muscle" rather than technique as in BJJ, so size really helps. This is more full on.

judoka are taught strikes at the black belt level. It's still not a focus, but they are taught.

A lot of the takedowns now require less skill and more "muscle" because the guys are larger. But the techniques remain effective.

false. It doesn't take alot of strength to pull of a double leg, or any other takedown you'll learn.

In simplistic style, pure BJJ want to take it to the ground and choke the guy out, or settle for a submission.

in competition, sure. If you attend a self defense aspect of classes though, then you will see it relies more on clinching and throws/takedowns that leave you stading so that you can either keep fighting or get away.


Competition BJJ uses kimono or no kimono and takes Judo to the next level because it is all based on submissions only, if no submission then the dominate fighter wins.

due to the lack of throws, I wouldn't say that it takes judo to the next level - it's merely a different rule set.


Sambo is like BJJ as far as I can tell, some of them have really fantastic leg locks. they wear bike pants, kimono tops and short boxing shoes. And most have a wresting background combined with Traditional Jujitsu = sambo.

sambo is more like judo than bjj.


Most MMA is Thai Boxing and BJJ, with an emphasis on fast heavy strikes.

these days, that is varied greatly. Wrestling is actually very dominant on the mma scene now.


They aren't better than one another because their purposes are different. But if a trad Jujitsu guy got a strike in first then it's probably over.


I won't comment on that one...

[SevenStar]

Now, whether overseas schools teaches these methods is depended on how close to "traditional judo" they are...... sounds funny the term, traditional judo.



judo by definition, is not traditional.

[SevenStar]

Unless yo get taken down you will never know what its like to be in a enviroment that isnt your cuppa tea its kinda scarey when a guy has you locked, choked, screaming to get up. These arts have there place many people should learn some of it i think!

FT

exactly....

[Piercing Light]

Hi ya Seven Star,

Thanks for your post...
Allow me to clarify and give you some links for more research. As I stated it was my understanding and not absolute fact, no one has this completely. Anyway...

Thanks for expanding on Judo. I didn't see where I stated Judoka don't learn strikes, but it sure isn't what Judo is all about, as far as I can tell.

A lot of the takedowns now require less skill and more "muscle" because the guys are larger. But the techniques remain effective.
false. It doesn't take alot of strength to pull of a double leg, or any other takedown you'll learn. (I like the I'll learn bit, I've never stopped...)
Hey, on this point get the "muscle" bit right. In Australia we have rugby league, it's a football sport and they have some great takedowns (tackles) and anyone that follows the game will know how it's changed as the guys have gotten bigger and the training has changed. These guys use more "muscle" now. Sure it's always based on centre of gravity, based of support, fulcrums, levers and the addition of force. Want me to continue...

Anyway Wrestling is different to BJJ and I would considered some of the difference to be more "muscle". As for the thai boxing, BJJ mix as MMA, it is MMA and you are probably right about that, emphasis seems now has moved to striking/ground and pound with fewer submissions.

On sambo...
http://www.shoto.com/menu.php3?category=ma&page=content/styles/russian/articles/sambo.html
This is a history but like anything unless you were there you have to take someone elses word. Sambo is not more like Judo or anything else, it's sambo! I think it's all opinion and experience.

And thanks for the contribution though I was seeking more constructive arguments than debate.

Piercing Light

[SevenStar]

Thanks for expanding on Judo. I didn't see where I stated Judoka don't learn strikes, but it sure isn't what Judo is all about, as far as I can tell.

you said this, above: "Jujitsu is the source and they do strike!" - I thought that may have been an implication that judo had no strikes. If that's not what it was, then my bad - I was only trying to clarify.


Anyway Wrestling is different to BJJ and I would considered some of the difference to be more "muscle".

agreed.


On sambo...
http://www.shoto.com/menu.php3?category=ma&page=content/styles/russian/articles/sambo.html
This is a history but like anything unless you were there you have to take someone elses word. Sambo is not more like Judo or anything else, it's sambo! I think it's all opinion and experience.

And thanks for the contribution though I was seeking more constructive arguments than debate.

it's sambo, you're correct, but it was created by taking various native runssian styles and combining them with judo and some striking. The link you provided states that as well - "To Asian styles such as, JuJitsu, Karate, Judo, Kung-fu and Aikido, the men added their experience with the native, Russian hand-to-hand combat, known only as 'Russian Martial Art'." It later states that one of the guys was a TJJ master and also friends with the founder of judo.

I'll see if I can find out anything else though - one of my judo coaches also competes internationally in sambo and is ranked as a master of sport in sambo.

[Vasquez]

Prove it.

I say it gives a pretty significant advantage, because fighting full-contact in the sporting world is as close as reasonably possible to being in a real fight. You get plenty of work in against an unpredictable and resisting opponent.

Why are you asking me to prove what David Jamieson says? He said it was a small advantage. you said its a significant advantage - which is correct?

One question crossed my mind is why grappling styles like eagle claw don't focus on take downs whereas BJJ does. I feel its because BJJ is sportive - can be done in a ring. Not practical on a hard concrete floor or unknown surroudings.

Again it's not just whether you train but how you train for what purpose.

[Reggie1]

One question crossed my mind is why grappling styles like eagle claw don't focus on take downs whereas BJJ does.

I can see the logic in that.


I feel its because BJJ is sportive - can be done in a ring. Not practical on a hard concrete floor or unknown surroudings.

Again it's not just whether you train but how you train for what purpose.

I can see a takedown being very practical on a concrete floor. I'd imagine most takedowns are designed for you to end up on top of your opponent. You get the benefit of not having to land on the concrete floor because you're on top of them, and they get the unfortunate disadvantage of landing on concrete and having you on top of them.

[Vasquez]

I can see the logic in that.
I can see a takedown being very practical on a concrete floor. I'd imagine most takedowns are designed for you to end up on top of your opponent. You get the benefit of not having to land on the concrete floor because you're on top of them, and they get the unfortunate disadvantage of landing on concrete and having you on top of them.

Any guess as to why eagle claw was done that way? TCMA also has sweeps against the pressure points at the ankle to throw off the balance and drop the attacker on the ground. IMHO it is better than going down with your attacker.

In an ideal collison the attacker would go straight down and you land on the top. But this is not a ring, the ground might be uneaven, etc etc and you might both end up hitting the gound. what do you think?

[Fu-Ying]

Sevenstar-

I know judo is not a traditional art. I was using the word traditonal, in the context of how the curriculum of most traditonal arts are closely adhered to by students and teacher.

In this case i was saying how closely overseas judo schools adhere to the same curriculum as the Kodokan in Japan.

[Reggie1]

Any guess as to why eagle claw was done that way? TCMA also has sweeps against the pressure points at the ankle to throw off the balance and drop the attacker on the ground. IMHO it is better than going down with your attacker.

In an ideal collison the attacker would go straight down and you land on the top. But this is not a ring, the ground might be uneaven, etc etc and you might both end up hitting the gound. what do you think?

I agree. Falling on concrete sucks, but I don't think it's as bad as most people make it out to be, ESPECIALLY if you know how to fall. We do our Shaui Chiao on hard, unpadded carpet and it's not too bad. Sure, concrete is going to be rougher than that, but I don't think it's the end of the world.

We have quite a few sweeps as well w/ a similar philosophy to eagle claw. Our ideal is that we stay upright and leave the attacker on the gound. It's just that in actual practice (for me), it's quite difficult to stay on your feet from any standing takedown, save the ankle sweeps.

[Vasquez]

I agree. Falling on concrete sucks, but I don't think it's as bad as most people make it out to be, ESPECIALLY if you know how to fall. We do our Shaui Chiao on hard, unpadded carpet and it's not too bad. Sure, concrete is going to be rougher than that, but I don't think it's the end of the world.

We have quite a few sweeps as well w/ a similar philosophy to eagle claw. Our ideal is that we stay upright and leave the attacker on the gound. It's just that in actual practice (for me), it's quite difficult to stay on your feet from any standing takedown, save the ankle sweeps.


Knowing how to fall is part of it, also depends on how you're getting thrown. If they project your chi into the ground you'll fall hard - straight down without a chance to do judio type rolls to break fall. ankle sweeps are great, takes the chi from under them like the dangerous flowing river in the tien shan mountains.

BTW I've used DM in self defence and it worked but not how I intended. Missed the heart point and hit the person in the eye. It's alot harder to hit a moving target then on a pressure point chart. I need more practice.

[Reggie1]

Knowing how to fall is part of it, also depends on how you're getting thrown. If they project your chi into the ground you'll fall hard - straight down without a chance to do judio type rolls to break fall. ankle sweeps are great, takes the chi from under them like the dangerous flowing river in the tien shan mountains.

Yeah we try and make the landings as unpleasant as possible. It's a lot harder to do with somebody who knows how to fall, though. A LOT harder. You really have to put a lot of effort into it, and from what I've experienced, a guy who knows how to fall well can bring you down with him.


BTW I've used DM in self defence and it worked but not how I intended. Missed the heart point and hit the person in the eye. It's alot harder to hit a moving target then on a pressure point chart. I need more practice.

That's too funny! :D :D Things never seem to work out the way you want in a self-defense situation.

[SevenStar]

yeah, that's hilarious.

[Piercing Light]

Not hitting the right point... it shows that there are many variables that cannot or aren't being controlled.

Purposes of a takedown can be varied, like aiming to crack their skull open, preparing to run away, as a warning/lesson, but most people who do takedowns want to gain a good position (that is one of dominance).
Survival is it, Kung-fu, gun or even run (or any other possibility).

Would be nice to do some confrontational analysis... though it always retrospective... should be included with modern day elements, maybe like the reality stuff like in the defence agencies.

Anyone do usual drills like getting in and out of a car vs. attacker, and that kind of stuff?

Piercing Light

[Vasquez]

yeah, that's hilarious.

You would have missed out on a good laugh if you had banned me.

[SevenStar]

Not hitting the right point... it shows that there are many variables that cannot or aren't being controlled.

Purposes of a takedown can be varied, like aiming to crack their skull open, preparing to run away, as a warning/lesson, but most people who do takedowns want to gain a good position (that is one of dominance).
Survival is it, Kung-fu, gun or even run (or any other possibility).

Would be nice to do some confrontational analysis... though it always retrospective... should be included with modern day elements, maybe like the reality stuff like in the defence agencies.

Anyone do usual drills like getting in and out of a car vs. attacker, and that kind of stuff?

Piercing Light

I don't teach either of those, as if I were in the car, I'd stay there and keep driving (unless for some reason the car wouldn't move) and if I were out of the car, I wouldn't get in it, unless I had PLENTY of space between myself and my attacker. That said, I do talk about situational awareness - walking several feet away from a building, for example, that way you can glimpse around the corner before you actually walk past it.